72 volt scooter here in china

i don't supose you work for this company ??
only kidding . loads of thought have gone into these scooters but think the .
company must of run out of money when it come to the covering up of the swinging arm on the rear??
as looks so cheap and nasty i think a little bit more plastic and a bit more imagination .
and hey presto a scooter that looks good
to me its like buying a brand new car with .. ( THREE ) brand new alloys with tyres and
some one has put the FORTH wheel on from spare in the boot tut tut tut ..apart from that looks ok..
but 100 miles + ad like to see that and hope they dont say this can be acheved at 12mph ha
all min speed range should be a standard and should be 29 mph min thats it .
i would like to see some one do over 100 miles range at 12mph ha.
lets be relistic,,
kev

When you consider buying a scooter with 5000 watts be warned that the manufacture of that motor does not claim its good for 5,000. The test procedure on all of those motors is how many watts can you give it in a dyno test for 3 minutes before the failure mode is reached. The manufacturer says that the failure mode is 150 degree c when the epoxy that holds the magnets in place combined with the growth in the aluminum lets the magnets go. Our group does electric vehicle design and testing for distributor and vehicle development groups. Seen a few stuck motors from this.

At 5,000 you are right on the limit. The bikes that use 72 volts and lower amps do better at avoiding problems than the ones that run the 60 Ah batteries, 100 amps, and 60 volts.

When we recently worked on a 5100 watt bike and some 6 Kw through 8 Kw motors we had to design cooling into the motors as they have none as now used by all of the Chinese companies. This is the problem area of these electric motors - zero cooling. All sealed up. Even the Vectrix starts out at 12 Kw peak but dies to 3.8 according the the information they posted themselves.

DH Zehrbach

nice little scooter i can see that little piece of molded plastic covring the swing rear arm /motor that was on the new scooters.
on previus issues and noticed it on your scooter .it must be the norn.??
i can'r belive how cheap the scooters are out there can you find and really moden ones
like big cruses and are fitted with lithium
and have really good range i/e 150 miles range and top speed aprox 50/60 mph.
and good quality thanks kev

I love it.
Is it (or something similar) going to be available to buy in North America?

A 800w 48v scooter never reach 65km/h. Chinese suppliers amplifies the mileage on speedo. Don't believe it. The real speed is 35-40 at most. But which is true is actually you don't need a 5000w scooter for just driving like 3 or 5 miles to your office and drive back after work. But most of your foreignoer completely don't understand it.

A 800w 48v scooter never reach 65km/h. Chinese suppliers amplifies the mileage on speedo. Don't believe it. The real speed is 35-40 at most. But which is true is actually you don't need a 5000w scooter for just driving like 3 or 5 miles to your office and drive back after work. But most of your foreignoer completely don't understand it.

You are quite right, the Chinese seem to have learned from us! (the sixties super cars never actually went anywhere near as fast as they claimed) The overwhelming majority of Chinese scooters are cheap, because they have very poor performance, appalling build quality, no safety, and short lives. They are designed to satisfy Chinese expectations and regulations. (and enforcement). Even if you only worked 5 miles from home, you still must comply with the traffic conditions of where you live, Owning a 20 to 30 mph vehicle is just plain silly in Western traffic conditions.

I hate to say it, but even bicycles are very dangerous for other traffic! In most cities road conditions are simply not compatible for bicycles, no matter how many bike lanes are installed. Bikes are a nightmare for motorists. This is made worse by the arrogance of an increasing number of cyclists, who sanctimoniously believe that their dubious environmental philosophic credentials give them permission to disobey road rules and ignore the rights of other road users.

The last thing modern traffic needs is more unsafe pests.(how ever well meaning!) The advantage of products like Vectrix, is they can hold their own in traffic, and are more compatible with traffic flow patterns and drivers expectations.

First, I am sorry I am not us to you. I am Chinese.
Different conditions and demands make different products. As long as the scooters sell quite well in China, it means it good to us. You will need your fast, high power system too.
I like vectrix, I saw they are developing a sportbike and a second scooter. That sportbike is really beautiful.

I hate to say it, but even bicycles are very dangerous for other traffic! In most cities road conditions are simply not compatible for bicycles, no matter how many bike lanes are installed. Bikes are a nightmare for motorists. This is made worse by the arrogance of an increasing number of cyclists, who sanctimoniously believe that their dubious environmental philosophic credentials give them permission to disobey road rules and ignore the rights of other road users.

The last thing modern traffic needs is more unsafe pests.(how ever well meaning!) The advantage of products like Vectrix, is they can hold their own in traffic, and are more compatible with traffic flow patterns and drivers expectations.

Well I'm not sure what its like where you are, but where I live I pay city taxes. And those city taxes go directly to infrastructure like roads, so in my opinion I DO have a right to use the roads as well as the car people. Not only that but the laws say I do as well, no matter what kind of a "pest" automobile owners might consider me to be. Unfortunately, the attitude that you wrote seems pretty prevalent amongst alot of the car people I meet, and I would argue that this is actually where the source of the problem is. Its this sense of "entitlement" from car owners that creates so many problems. Driving a car is a privilege not a right (at least where I'm from here in Canada), and you have to look out for other traffic, including bikes, horses, handicaped on motorized trikes and pedestrians, etc.

That said the bike people DO NOT HELP, by ignoring the rules of the road as you've described. Its really dismaying to boot around on my e-scooter, take a right turn on some road, and find a cyclist almost colliding with me because they figured the rules of the road don't apply to them, and they could just drive on the wrong side for whatever reason.

A 800w 48v scooter never reach 65km/h. Chinese suppliers amplifies the mileage on speedo. Don't believe it. The real speed is 35-40 at most. But which is true is actually you don't need a 5000w scooter for just driving like 3 or 5 miles to your office and drive back after work. But most of your foreignoer completely don't understand it.

My daily commute to work is 40 miles one way, over county roads that the flow of traffic is at least 60 mph. So I would dearly love to find a scooter or motorcycle that could go an honest 60 mph and a minimum of 100 miles on a charge, as well as be able to run with the lights on for the trip. So you can see why it is important for some of us to find a vehicle that will do that. Living within 5 miles from work just does not happen all over the world.

Well I'm not sure what its like where you are, but where I live I pay city taxes. And those city taxes go directly to infrastructure like roads, so in my opinion I DO have a right to use the roads as well as the car people. Not only that but the laws say I do as well, no matter what kind of a "pest" automobile owners might consider me to be. Unfortunately, the attitude that you wrote seems pretty prevalent amongst alot of the car people I meet, and I would argue that this is actually where the source of the problem is. Its this sense of "entitlement" from car owners that creates so many problems. Driving a car is a privilege not a right (at least where I'm from here in Canada), and you have to look out for other traffic, including bikes, horses, handicaped on motorized trikes and pedestrians, etc.

Well yes, you are right, if the law allows, you do have a legal right to be on the road. But remember, in most countries, a huge proportion of road infrastructure is paid for from motor vehicle registration fees and petrol tax.
But that was not my point, it is a simple fact that most city main roads, and certainly freeways, do not cater for HORSES! Nor are roads designed to cater for vehicles incompatible with other traffic. Anything that the interrupts traffic flow is the traffic designers nightmare. Road users who deliberately or inconsiderately, interrupt coordinated traffic flow are intolerable, inconsiderate and dangerous pests to fellow road users.

Since four-wheeled vehicles constitute more than 95% of traffic, even in Canada, it is reasonable to assume that road networks should be calculated to cater for the motorists needs, and not the ideological needs of a tiny minority, no matter how well-intentioned or self-righteous. The needs of special interest vehicles should be kept separate and heavily separated from the mainstream traffic. This is not a debate about righteousness but commonsense road safety. The motorist already has difficulty with properly registered, powerful two-wheeled vehicles, that can keep within the traffic flow and conditions, without worrying about dangerous (and mostly unregistered) cycles.

All two wheeled traffic, lacks the safety protections developed for modern cars, as a result two wheeled traffic constitutes a frighten high percentage of serious road injury statistics. This costs entire community vast sums and resources in heath-care.

Even more irritating, is the erroneous assumption by Vespa owners and other small mopeds, that they are somehow contributing to the environment! It is shocking to observe these (often female) riders, wearing at the most a helmet in way of protective clothing, (not that I am opposed to scantily clad females, on principle, just on safety grounds...ah.. let me rephrase that.. oh well, you get my meaning!).

Any two wheeled owner who ventures out into modern traffic with out adequate protective clothing, should be arrested and forced to serve as an orderly in a hospital road trauma unit!! I believe that just as airbags etc are compulsory for cars, so should riders be compelled to wear airbag jackets, leggings, full face helmets etc.

Yeah, I know, very nanny state,anti-easy rider stuff! I am dismayed at how all the fun and adventure is disappearing in modern society. (especially as I get older!) Each year the population increases and the freedom of the 'open road', has sadly, all but disappeared into a nightmare of traffic snarls.

Oh, any incidentally, I own and ride a Honda Goldwing, Triumph Bonneville, Vectrix VX 1.

I hate to say it, but even bicycles are very dangerous for other traffic! In most cities road conditions are simply not compatible for bicycles, no matter how many bike lanes are installed. Bikes are a nightmare for motorists. This is made worse by the arrogance of an increasing number of cyclists, who sanctimoniously believe that their dubious environmental philosophic credentials give them permission to disobey road rules and ignore the rights of other road users.

The last thing modern traffic needs is more unsafe pests.(how ever well meaning!) The advantage of products like Vectrix, is they can hold their own in traffic, and are more compatible with traffic flow patterns and drivers expectations.

Well I'm not sure what its like where you are, but where I live I pay city taxes. And those city taxes go directly to infrastructure like roads, so in my opinion I DO have a right to use the roads as well as the car people. Not only that but the laws say I do as well, no matter what kind of a "pest" automobile owners might consider me to be. Unfortunately, the attitude that you wrote seems pretty prevalent amongst alot of the car people I meet, and I would argue that this is actually where the source of the problem is. Its this sense of "entitlement" from car owners that creates so many problems. Driving a car is a privilege not a right (at least where I'm from here in Canada), and you have to look out for other traffic, including bikes, horses, handicaped on motorized trikes and pedestrians, etc.

That said the bike people DO NOT HELP, by ignoring the rules of the road as you've described. Its really dismaying to boot around on my e-scooter, take a right turn on some road, and find a cyclist almost colliding with me because they figured the rules of the road don't apply to them, and they could just drive on the wrong side for whatever reason.

Marcopolo - your comments on cycling are fighting talk. I assume from your prejudices that you are an American, where the motor-vehicle hegemony still holds sway. But much of what you say seems ridiculous to a European perspective. 95% of the traffic may be motor vehicles where you are, but that's because the road environment (and attitude like yours) make it so. In places where they take cycling seriously 30-50% of traffic is bicycles, and they are a huge boon to both users and town councils, not 'a dangerous pest'! People get places more quickly, and stay fitter doing it, spending much less money, and the council saves enormously due to hugely reduced road infrastructure costs. The environment is nicer and quieter, and of course the overall Carbon footprint is hugely reduced. This is all good stuff.

Looking at it from the narrow view of 'cyclists impede the progress of the all-powerful motor vehicle' is hopelessly narrow minded, and I expect better of you, especially on a forum like this. Your comments on safety barely deserve a reply: Cycling is safer than driving per hour, and slightly less safe per mile (UK stats). The more cyclists there are the safer it gets (by a large amount). Overall cyclists live longer than drivers (The health benefits far outweigh the risks). Suggesting 'Compulsory airbag jackets and helmets' is complete disproportionate nonsense.

Your beloved traffic-flow, despite being the mantra of petrol-headed road-designers everywhere for decades, is not actually a very useful metric. Often restricting traffic-flow is exactly what is needed to improve the overall environment for everyone, and increase cycling and thus free-up readspace for those who still do drive, and everyone gets where they are going in both less time and using less fossil-fuel. Again, see innumerable examples in places like Cambridge, Gronigen, Copenhagen, where this policy has been followed for many years.

Marcopolo - your comments on cycling are fighting talk. I assume from your prejudices that you are an American, where the motor-vehicle hegemony still holds sway. But much of what you say seems ridiculous to a European perspective. 95% of the traffic may be motor vehicles where you are, but that's because the road environment (and attitude like yours) make it so. In places where they take cycling seriously 30-50% of and they are a huge boon to both users and town councils, not 'a dangerous pest'! People get places more quickly, and stay fitter doing it, spending much less money, and the council saves enormously due to hugely reduced road infrastructure costs. The environment is nicer and quieter, and of course the overall Carbon footprint is hugely reduced. This is all good stuff.

Looking at it from the narrow view of 'cyclists impede the progress of the all-powerful motor vehicle' is hopelessly narrow minded, and I expect better of you, especially on a forum like this. Your comments on safety barely deserve a reply: Cycling is safer than driving per hour, and slightly less safe per mile (UK stats). The more cyclists there are the safer it gets (by a large amount). Overall cyclists live longer than drivers (The health benefits far outweigh the risks). Suggesting 'Compulsory airbag jackets and helmets' is complete disproportionate nonsense.

Your beloved traffic-flow, despite being the mantra of petrol-headed road-designers everywhere for decades, is not actually a very useful metric. Often restricting traffic-flow is exactly what is needed to improve the overall environment for everyone, and increase cycling and thus free-up readspace for those who still do drive, and everyone gets where they are going in both less time and using less fossil-fuel. Again, see innumerable examples in places like Cambridge, Gronigen, Copenhagen, where this policy has been followed for many years.

Well, this is a far more polite and well presentented argument than the usual rant from the green cyclist lobby. But the lack of logic is exactly the same! eg;

1) If you re-read my post, you will see I referred to urban and suburban main roads, not ancient city lane-ways. Yes, some old European cities are better suited to cycling than those in the new world. Copenhagen is a good example. But these are very rare exceptions when considering national traffic flow requirements even in a small nation like Denmark. Can you imagine, even if it were legal, the danger to a cyclist on a freeway or autobahn?

2) 'Everyone benefits' from restricting traffic to cycling? Really?!! What about the elderly, the handicapped, the infirm, those who wish to take passengers, or travel more than 5 km, or travel faster than pedal power? Only public transport for them eh? Everyone must heed the new green fascism!

3) "In places where they take cycling seriously 30-50% of traffic is bicycles"? what kind of vague statistic is that? Sounds very convincing, but is really meaningless.

4) Most of my comments were directed at under-powered motorised two wheeled traffic. Exactly how does a "Vespa save the planet"? How is a rider on an under-powered, second hand, Vietnamese built, scooter/moped, with no protective clothing, safer than a motorist?

4) 'UK stats'? Yeah of course, if I took stats from a UK study centred on cycling statistics from, say Cambridge, and compared them with the national motorised road toll, I would produce such a result! But, in fact, a realistic study is impossible to calculate. Motor vehicle statistics are compiled from police and insurance statistics, since cyclists are rarely insured, and police reports are only available for the most serious cases, such a study prove very difficult to acquire enough relevant facts to be objective. But, you seem only concerned with bicycling stats, instead you should compare stats, for death and serious injury rate of motorised two-wheel vehicles! These are true horror stories! In Australia for instance, which is a fairly underpopulated nation, motor cyclist make-up 3% of all road traffic, but represent 16-18% of road trauma injuries. NZ stats reflect the same pattern, as do Canada, Germany, France, Spain, and the UK !

5) Not every advocate of EV development shares your particular political/lifestyle philosophy. It's not essential to embrace a 'whole new world as chanted by the green-left environment movement', to understand and promote the advantages of Electric Vehicle development. The bicycle has its place. It is a form of transport for a very narrow range of people who enjoy it's experience. The trouble with some cyclists is evangelism! Now that's always narrow minded!

6) I also own a bicycle which I enjoy riding for exercise around a park and lakeland. But, I don't ride in heavy traffic. Nor do I see how breathing in a whole lot of vehicle fumes can be healthy, but each to his own.

I'm not going to keep arguing, because I know how much you enjoy it, but this point needs a response:

2) 'Everyone benefits' from restricting traffic to cycling? Really?!! What about the elderly, the handicapped, the infirm, those who wish to take passengers, or travel more than 5 km, or travel faster than pedal power? Only public transport for them eh? Everyone must heed the new green fascism!

That's not what I said at all. I explained that traffic restrictions (various forms: usually speed, sometimes vehicle size, often making route non-through-routes for motor vehicles) are good for everybody because they enormously increase cycling which _also_ frees up road space for the "elderly, the handicapped, the infirm, those who wish to take passengers" travelling by car. It's not just cyclists that benefit from less car-centric transport policy.

And of course it's only people who rarely cycle (and some transport planners) that think 5km is a reasonable limit for normal cycling distances. A recent survey here in Cambridge found that 20% of cycle journeys were over 12km, for example, and this is an important asoect of doing traffic predictions for new developments.

I'm not going to keep arguing, because I know how much you enjoy it, but this point needs a response:

2) 'Everyone benefits' from restricting traffic to cycling? Really?!! What about the elderly, the handicapped, the infirm, those who wish to take passengers, or travel more than 5 km, or travel faster than pedal power? Only public transport for them eh? Everyone must heed the new green fascism!

That's not what I said at all. I explained that traffic restrictions (various forms: usually speed, sometimes vehicle size, often making route non-through-routes for motor vehicles) are good for everybody because they enormously increase cycling which _also_ frees up road space for the "elderly, the handicapped, the infirm, those who wish to take passengers" travelling by car. It's not just cyclists that benefit from less car-centric transport policy.

And of course it's only people who rarely cycle (and some transport planners) that think 5km is a reasonable limit for normal cycling distances. A recent survey here in Cambridge found that 20% of cycle journeys were over 12km, for example, and this is an important aspect of doing traffic predictions for new developments.

What is with the cycling fraternity? I say that slow moving, unsafe and poorly quality two-wheeled machines are a danger to themselves and others in the heavy modern traffic, and you tell me that it all should be changed to a Utopian paradise and quote, Cambridge as the traffic model for the UK!?

Still at least you are not as bad as your Antipodean cousins! Judging from this latest news item, (below), and considering that the same community is still in shock at the deaths of elderly pedestrians, from bicyclists, it would appear that things are not as rosy as you portray in the land of green cycling.

" Police in Sydney are trying to find a cyclist who is accused of smashing a bus mirror and then attacking the driver.
Reports claim the man climbed on board the bus after it had overtaken him at Seven Hills on the North West Transitway. Cyclists are banned from using transitways.
The alleged attack took place early Friday morning,
It's understood the cyclist pulled up alongside the bus at a set of lights, banged on the bus window and broke the mirror. At the next bus stop, police say he got on the bus and assaulted the 64-year-old driver.
Fairfax reports that union officials believe he pushed a woman passenger out of the way to get to the driver.
The cyclist rode away afterwards, and has not yet been found.
TWU spokesman Darcy Waller told 2UE, "Luckily there was a security screen on that particular bus which prevented the assailant getting right into it.
"The driver wasn't badly hurt, he's not one of the youngest drivers that are out there but ... he was able to defend himself."
He added that the union had received reports of families riding up and down the T-way, and that it was an 'accident waiting to happen'.

...
...
The bicycle has its place. It is a form of transport for a very narrow range of people who enjoy it's experience.
...
...

The bicycle is much more than that! As far as I know, it is the most energy efficient mode of human transport available today, beating walking and running along with all motorized transport. (One exception might be electric bicycles. There are those that claim that an electric bicycle is even more energy efficient than a purely human powered bicycle. The maths only add up like this because of the negative energy balance which we get out of modern agriculture: We use up more joules (in form of fossile fuel, fertilizers etc) during masss-production of food than what our bodies can extract from the food grown as a result!)

You cannot get around certain laws of physics, and the weight ratio between vehicle and pay-load determines (in the absence of perfect regen-braking) how efficient a vehicle can be.

I do however agree with many of your other points: as long as the roads are full of heavy vehicles travelling at high speed, the alternative vehicles need to be more powerful than what would otherwise be neccessary.

The bicycle is much more than that! As far as I know, it is the most energy efficient mode of human transport available today, beating walking and running along with all motorized transport. (One exception might be electric bicycles. There are those that claim that an electric bicycle is even more energy efficient than a purely human powered bicycle. The maths only add up like this because of the negative energy balance which we get out of modern agriculture: We use up more joules (in form of fossile fuel, fertilizers etc) during masss-production of food than what our bodies can extract from the food grown as a result!)

You cannot get around certain laws of physics, and the weight ratio between vehicle and pay-load determines (in the absence of perfect regen-braking) how efficient a vehicle can be.

I do however agree with many of your other points: as long as the roads are full of heavy vehicles travelling at high speed, the alternative vehicles need to be more powerful than what would otherwise be neccessary. [/quote]

Yes of course Mik, the bicycle is a very efficient form of transport, but then as long as you have a river, canal or lake conveniently located along your chosen route, then a sail boat is even better!

My comments were really aimed at permitting unsuitable underpowered and dangerous two wheeled traffic, to compete on modern roads.With the appearance growing numbers of unsuitable two-wheeled transport on crowded highways, this is an increasingly important issue. Although, Vectrix has the ability to keep up with modern traffic, products such as the Chinese built mopeds are simply inadequate! It would be the same as trying to justify the use of golf buggies on modern highways, because they are more environmental friendly! True, but dangerously impractical.

I also take great exception to the moral concept that riders of under-powered two wheel vehicles should not be required to wear safety apparel, since they travel relatively slowly. As I previously stated, a moral argument is of very little practical benefit, when you have been involved in a collision with a car, truck, or bus!

Physics ??

OK, how about this, a Car weighing 1500 kg and travelling at 60kph strikes a Vespa,(Emax, Mountain Chen, etc), weighing 200 kg (including rider) travelling at 30kph, rider leaves bike accelerating,to maybe 122kph before impact. Now whatever the rider impacts with, be it road or another vehicle is going to be made of a lot harder material that the material the rider is made from !!! So what's so absurd about safety apparel!!

Oh that's right, I was forgetting, the e-max rider is clad in moral superiority? Tell that to the Road Trauma Unit at your local hospital.

Equally irritating is the self-righteous, sanctimonious attitude adopted by some bicyclists to justify moral superiority in the use of public highways, funded by primarily by motorists! I find this type of evangelical self absorbed pests, very annoying.

It is also true that many cyclists are responsible road users who ride in an appropriate manner, with regard for other road users.

However, the bicycle can't really be considered a serious form of mass transport. It's just not fast enough, lacks range for the ordinary person, and excludes all those except the young and/or fit. That it's exploited as the vehicle of choice by minor politicians for photo opportunities, because it's marvellously impractical, yet gathers lots of emotive green publicity.(it is always the same politicians who Jet to a great many, unnecessary, tax payer funded, overseas conferences, to talk about the environment!)

For those few towns and cities uniquely adapted with appropriate facilities for cyclists, great! More power to them! Like those cities who were far sighted enough to retain tram and suburban rail networks. But just because a few cities like Venice possess extensive canal networks, we are not about begin a mass canal building program for every city in the world!

marcopolo,

I'm not sure what part the USA you come from, but there are many US cities and even suburbs, such as where I live in Pittsburgh, where low-power scooters keep up with traffic and the speed limits just fine. In the central districts, even bicycles keep up with traffic. And your claim that bicycles and scooters cause congestion and delays for others is absurd. All the congestion I see is caused by too many cars - especially single-occupant cars, not bicycles or scooters. Getting more people on 2-wheel transportation, only increases the capacity of a street. Public transit helps even more. No doubt you are like those I have encountered who get angry being behind a bus, packed with commuters in heavy city traffic, blaming it for slowing the traffic - yet that bus is taking 50 cars off the road, while achieving hundreds of passenger miles per gallon of reduced carbon footprint.

And to answer your question about the environmental benefit of Vespa riders, at 100 mpg fuel efficiency, that have only a third or less of the carbon footprint of the single occupant car they are likely replacing, only taking the bus or trolley is more efficient.

I have no problem staying at or above the city or suburban speed limits wherever I need to go on my 50cc equivalent (better on hills) Chinese electric scooter. Maybe I'm fortunate to live in an old-fashioned compact city that doesn't require using freeways.

You seem to be stuck in a automobile-oriented sunbelt-suburban mode of thinking about infrastructure (for those in the UK, think Milton Keynes). After living in compact, walkable, bicycle, scooter or public transit friendly, neighborhoods, the appalling inefficiencies, in peoples time, environmental impact, and land-use, of the cul-de-sac/freeway/shopping mall mode of development is obvious. It MUST have been a deliberate effort by certain business interests.

I refer you to the works of James Howard Kunstler and, as a primer, the documentary film "The End of Suburbia". Works by J.H. Crawford on carfree city design are very good too.

A number of times, you have stated that you think that bicyclists and Vespa owners have a ideological agenda, but it is you who seem to be bringing here a conservative ideological agenda. The era of the personal automobile and the US-suburban model of development that it both spawned and relies on, like yin and yang, is coming to a close. And, the quality of life for everyone will improve when it is gone.

Yes of course Mik, the bicycle is a very efficient form of transport, but then as long as you have a river, canal or lake conveniently located along your chosen route, then a sail boat is even better!

I disagree! A sail boat might make use of freely available energy (wind), but it transforms it inefficiently. It weighs more than the pay-load. And it creates waves which carry much energy away from the primary purpose of transporting the pay-load. If you think a sail boat would be better, than I invoke free soup kitchens (or bananas - they seem to be the preferred food for professional bike riders) along the bike-way (even when it goes uphill or downhill and the canal becomes a tad impractical)! That would be the equivalent of the free wind power. Then, try shouldring you sail boat and taking it into the office (or your clients house) when you arrive at your destination.

My comments were really aimed at permitting unsuitable underpowered and dangerous two wheeled traffic, to compete on modern roads.With the appearance growing numbers of unsuitable two-wheeled transport on crowded highways, this is an increasingly important issue. Although, Vectrix has the ability to keep up with modern traffic, products such as the Chinese built mopeds are simply inadequate! It would be the same as trying to justify the use of golf buggies on modern highways, because they are more environmental friendly! True, but dangerously impractical.

Dangerously impractical, yes, but so is the Vectrix during the (frequent, and manufacturer prescribed) rides with low battery state-of charge!
And, for all two-wheelers, dangerously impractical only because of all those cars on the roads. Without all the cars, an emax might be just fine. But the rider will of course still grind away the skin all the way through to the bone and into the joints, almost each time there is a fall at speed without safety gear.
During a heavy collision with a typical car, the safety gear might not help anywhere near as much as in a single vehicle accident.

I also take great exception to the moral concept that riders of under-powered two wheel vehicles should not be required to wear safety apparel, since they travel relatively slowly. As I previously stated, a moral argument is of very little practical benefit, when you have been involved in a collision with a car, truck, or bus!

Physics ??

OK, how about this, a Car weighing 1500 kg and travelling at 60kph strikes a Vespa,(Emax, Mountain Chen, etc), weighing 200 kg (including rider) travelling at 30kph, rider leaves bike accelerating,to maybe 122kph before impact. Now whatever the rider impacts with, be it road or another vehicle is going to be made of a lot harder material that the material the rider is made from !!! So what's so absurd about safety apparel!!

Oh that's right, I was forgetting, the e-max rider is clad in moral superiority? Tell that to the Road Trauma Unit at your local hospital.

Have you ever had a look at the "apparel" Vectrix was trying to sell to people? A joke! The whole scooter idea is based on the magical belief that it's not a motorbike, therefore you can ride it in office clothes! Stupidity is by no means restricted to riders of less powerful vehicles.

Equally irritating is the self-righteous, sanctimonious attitude adopted by some bicyclists to justify moral superiority in the use of public highways, funded by primarily by motorists! I find this type of evangelical self absorbed pests, very annoying.

That, I would say, pales easily against the much larger number of fatalities and permanent disabilities caused by car drivers who disobey the rules, due to similar lack of intelligence and personality traits as the very few idiots who enter highways on bicycles.

It is also true that many cyclists are responsible road users who ride in an appropriate manner, with regard for other road users.

And that, I might add, does not neccessarily require sticking to road rules made for cars! There are many occasions where and when a cyclist is much safer by breaking the road rules, without significantly impeding on anyone else! The raod rules should be changed, and probably are being changed to reflect this, in some places.

However, the bicycle can't really be considered a serious form of mass transport. It's just not fast enough, lacks range for the ordinary person, and excludes all those except the young and/or fit.

That is utterly untrue!!
The bicycle is already one of the predominant forms of mass transport on this planet, right now, if not the predominant one. If this is incorrect, then it is the only potentially affordable mass transport on this planet, for the majority of people, right now. You cannot give them all a car, or a Vectrix, or a scooter with less power. But we could give almost everyone a decent bicycle. With electric bicycles (and tricycles) the range, age and fitness limitations are less meaningful. Many old and unfit people would actually be much better off if the cars were reduced in numbers and they could use e-bikes etc much more safely.

That it's exploited as the vehicle of choice by minor politicians for photo opportunities, because it's marvellously impractical, yet gathers lots of emotive green publicity.(it is always the same politicians who Jet to a great many, unnecessary, tax payer funded, overseas conferences, to talk about the environment!)

I figure you forgot a "why" in there: "That's why it's exploited..." . But it is just not true that the bicycle is marveloously impractical! What is really marvellously impractical is the way that some (?mainly western?) societies have arranged the living and working locations of their populations!

For those few towns and cities uniquely adapted with appropriate facilities for cyclists, great! More power to them! Like those cities who were far sighted enough to retain tram and suburban rail networks. But just because a few cities like Venice possess extensive canal networks, we are not about begin a mass canal building program for every city in the world!

You are using inappropriate comparisons here! Of course we cannot begin canal building programs - we live in a multi-dimensional world, and even the most inept of us are painfully aware of at least three of these dimensions!
Bicycles work beautifully in those three dimensions: You can even carry them through a river or up a mountain, or take them on a train, in/on a car, ferry, whatever.
Bicycles could be built extremely cheaply without being the Trabant (car) equivalent. We (as a species) could provide bicycles of such a high standard to almost everyone, that for the average person the bicycle would be insignificantly different from a top-racing-machine usd by professional bicycle riders today. In fact, most people would be much happier with something sturdier.

By abandoning just one of the major wars we are fighting on our planet at the moment, we could probably free up resources and funds to produce decent bicycles in such numbers that individual ownership would be unneccessary. Loads of otherwise unemployed people could be kept busy and healthy by cycling the surplus bikes back to the locations where they are needed most (dropping them at a service point instead if there is any malfunction).

Utopia, of course, but a hell of a lot more realistic than assuming that we can continue as if there was no problem!

Mik, as always, a wonderfully well argued exposition of a Utopian concept endorsed by very few people. Human society is always plagued by Utopian visionaries, who know how to organise society if only they were in charge and and everyone would just comply! Occasionally, one or two succeed with disastrous consequences.

Just think, China until very recently was a bicycling society. But today, thank to the temptations of evil western influence, they are buying cars and motorcycles! Why, because they simply don't want to ride push bikes!

I absolutely refute your proposition than the elderly, infirm, or disabled can ride push-bikes to improve health! What nonsense! Oh, Great! The pedal power ambulance has arrived, just behind the fire engine, at 10 kph! Oh, look! The bicycle police are chasing the bad guys get away car, very, very slowly!

What is so hard for you to understand that, most people actually prefer fast safe modern transport, no-one, well very few, seriously wish to go back to the 19th century. Nor are we all going to redesign all our cities, civilisation, and way of life to conform to the views of a few doomsday extremists. For those who do, well the Amish, and Mennonites are looking for new recruits. This is not to say, that their way of life lacks a certain charm, but the small number of followers may indicate that it is not for everyone!

Your argument that somehow the roads would be better if cars, trucks and buses were eliminated in favour of push-bikes, is less valid than simply admitting that a push-bike is just unsuitable for modern transport, and admit that commonsense should prevail by restricting cyclists to minor roads and recreational bike paths,except in those though-fares that can accommodate cyclists safely. Next thing you will be telling me that bicycles on freeways would help the traffic flow?

As to the Vectrix, well yes, it had its drawbacks, but in theory could have kept up with modern traffic. Incidentally, my main disagreement was with underpowered motorised two-wheeled traffic pests, no seems to disagree with this observation, just the push-bike lobby defending cycling.

My example of a sail boat versus bicycle, was an attempt at flippancy, but on reflection, I am not sure you are right with your calculation, after all my boat could easily carry over 100 tonnes, could a bicycle? In addition, my sturdy peons carry my sedan chair and cargo from the dock to my door very easily! Since the peons only eat refuse and scraps,(and very gratefully! but not meat, I save meat for my valuable dogs, no sense in spoiling a good peon! Why, I am easily more environmental than your flimsy bicycle? Well what say you to that, my fine Sir..Hmmm... What's that you say? Give the peons a bicycle!!? Why would you cruelly deny them the joy of honest labour and healthy exercise! No, no, they are content the way the good Lord meant them to be, poor beggars.. but happy, yes even grateful, in their ignorance!

On a more serious note, the safety apparel I was referring to was the impressive new IPJ airbag jacket range. When I witnessed a demonstration of this product, I was immensely impressed by the its potential to dramatically reduce two wheeled road trauma injury.

Hey guys, I really only posted this because of my need for a faster scooter(here in China). We just moved our factory to a new structure and I need more speed and a longer battery life because of the greater distance, along with the saftey aspect of keeping up with these crazy drivers here. If anyone has ever went to Alibaba and looked at the 1000's of scooters here in China, I would appreciate any thoughts on to which scooter you might get for riding here in China.

Thanks

Sorry about the off-topic rants! That will go nowhere, anyway!

But you'll just have to face it: You are the one to tell us the answer to your questions, not the other way around! You are the "boots on the ground"!

"Incidentally, my main disagreement was with underpowered motorised two-wheeled traffic pests, no [one] seems to disagree with this observation..."

I disagree, as my previous post pointed out. Any 50CC scooter or my e-max, can travel at 45 mph/75 kph. This is plenty fast for city or suburban traffic - apart from freeways, which are easy to avoid.

And a worldwide scientific consensus is not "a few doomsday extremists."

If people are actually given the choice of an alternative, they will choose a quiet, safe, clean, car-free or car optional community every time. The problem is in most parts of the USA, they aren't given the choice.

Curious where you live? You don't seem to have seen much of the world.

"Incidentally, my main disagreement was with underpowered motorised two-wheeled traffic pests, no [one] seems to disagree with this observation..."

I disagree, as my previous post pointed out. Any 50CC scooter or my e-max, can travel at 45 mph/75 kph. This is plenty fast for city or suburban traffic - apart from freeways, which are easy to avoid.

And a worldwide scientific consensus is not "a few doomsday extremists."

If people are actually given the choice of an alternative, they will choose a quiet, safe, clean, car-free or car optional community every time. The problem is in most parts of the USA, they aren't given the choice.

Curious where you live? You don't seem to have seen much of the world.

You seem to be unable to separate your opinion, and how you would like the world to be, with the reality of what the vast majority of people prefer. This makes it difficult to reason with you. You remind me of those ferocious anti-MacDonalds advocate who claim "no one wants to eat MacDonald's! Given good clean healthy food, children will prefer wholesome vegetarian food". This is just plain silly. The advocates know it, kids know it and MacDonald's know it! The proof is simple, MacDonald's is hugely prosperous! ( careful about arguing that their customers are fools or brainwashed, these are your fellow citizens and voters).

You also make the baseless assumption that I have not travelled! Actually, I have four passports and spend most of my life travelling to every continent on the planet, including Antarctica! In most places,( with a few exceptions), 50cc or Emax styled Motor Scooters are unsuitable/dangerous vehicles and totally incompatible with the demands of modern traffic! Yes it's true that such vehicles can be ridden in traffic, but only at great inconvenience to the vast majority of other motorists.

Very few people opt to ride cheap small crappy mopeds! If these products were really desirable, the burgeoning middle class Chinese would not be queueing up to buy cars.

That was the appeal of Vectrix, it could reasonably hold its own in modern traffic.

Could you make a seperate thread if you want to have an off-topic debate?

There are better areas for what you want to discuss.

I keep thinking there is more news or new information about the scooters in the pictures.

I come here and I am always disapointed. It's the off topic debate again.

It's getting tiresome.

It seems to me that too many people on here are more concerned about flexing their gray matter, than actually having a good time enjoying these electric scooters.

You have not exactly contributed terribly much yourself, I might add!

Your thread would also have died a while ago, by the looks of it, without those who like to think...